A bipartisan group of US lawmakers introduced legislation on October 30 intended to create a new route for enforcing federal disclosure requirements concerning records related to Jeffrey Epstein. Representative Thomas Massie announced H.R. 9694, titled the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, alongside House co-leads Ro Khanna and Teresa Leger Fernández. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ben Ray Luján are leading a Senate version.
The proposal would grant legal standing to state attorneys general, victims of Epstein and his co-conspirators, and members of Congress to challenge the Department of Justice in court. Its sponsors say the mechanism is needed because the department has not complied with Public Law 119-38, the first Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Massie's announcement says the earlier law was signed on November 19, 2025, and required disclosure of relevant materials. He alleges that more than three million files remain withheld and that released records contain excessive redactions. Those figures and legal conclusions are claims by the bill's sponsors; the supplied source does not include a Justice Department response or an independent accounting of the records.
Khanna said the new measure would allow state officials and survivors to demand compliance directly. Leger Fernández likewise framed it as a consequence for executive-branch noncompliance. Merkley and Luján said the Senate effort was designed to strengthen enforcement and improve transparency for survivors. Their statements emphasize accountability but do not by themselves establish that a court would agree with their interpretation of the department's obligations.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez endorsed the legislation. He said his office needs unredacted federal records for a criminal investigation and argued that the bill would give state law enforcement necessary access while giving survivors greater control over their own records. The announcement does not specify which records his office has requested or what information the department has supplied.
The sponsors also outlined a procedural strategy. If House leaders do not bring the measure forward within seven legislative days, Massie's office said supporters will circulate a discharge petition, a mechanism that can force floor consideration if it receives enough signatures. That step may test the bill's support beyond its initial group of sponsors.
Introducing the legislation does not change current disclosure rules immediately. The measure must pass both chambers and be signed, or enacted over a veto, before its new standing provisions take effect. Debate is also likely to involve victim privacy, lawful redactions and the separation of powers. For now, the bill represents an attempt by lawmakers to move enforcement of the existing transparency mandate from political pressure into federal court.
